Just War Theory

[Fortunecookie]

Dear Christian Forums,

I have a question about Just War Theory. Often the following are hailed as conditions for a just war:

Just cause
All aggression is condemned; only defensive war is legitimate.

Just intention
The only legitimate intention is to secure a just peace for all involved. Neither revenge nor conquest nor economic gain nor ideological supremacy are justified.

Last resort
War may only be entered upon when all negotiations and compromise have been tried and failed.

Formal declaration
Since the use of military force is the prerogative of governments, not of private individuals, a state of war must be officially declared by the highest authorities.

Limited objectives
If the purpose is peace, then unconditional surrender or the destruction of a nation's economic or political institutions is an unwarranted objective.

Proportionate means
The weaponry and the force used should be limited to what is needed to repel the aggression and deter future attacks, that is to say to secure a just peace. Total or unlimited war is ruled out.

Noncombatant immunity
Since war is an official act of government, only those who are officially agents of government may fight, and individuals not actively contributing to the conflict (including POW's and casualties as well as civilian nonparticipants) should be immune from attack.

I have a few questions regarding them.


''All aggression is condemned; only defensive war is legitimate.''
What is aggressive and what is defensive? Must you personally be attacked in order to be a defensive actor? What if you see injustice and decide to join an effort in order to stop that unjust? Would it be wrong for states or non state actors to for instance join an effort against Nazi Germany even though Nazi Germany does not constitute a threat against them personally? Would it be wrong to support or join opposition to immoral regimes even though they do not constitute a threat to you yourself?

''Since the use of military force is the prerogative of governments, not of private individuals, a state of war must be officially declared by the highest authorities.''
Why are states only recognized as legitimative authorities? Often nations are born out of non state actors such as guerillas. These guerillas later become states. I do not see why states need to be the only form of legitimate authority. What about non state people collaborating to overthrow their own government because it is very bad. These individuals if successful become the state itself. What about people collaborating from other countries to overthrow other governments. Would it be wrong for South Korean or individuals from other nationalities to go to North Korea and organize a resistance movement wherein they free the political prisoners from prison camps for example? I just disagree with the fact that only states hold the right to violence.


Also when does violence become a war?

Thank you,

Fortunecookie

 

[DennisTate]

I think that you will be intrigued by the results to this poll:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7758287/


An apology to all members of the military and police!
I just want to say that I am truly sorry for all those years that I was close to believing in near total pacifism! Rabbi Jesus/Yehoshua once asked a question of the Scribes and Pharisees that should have made it obvious to me that an extreme situation can call for drastic action by a Christian or Jew who feels called into a life in the military or police!

Mark 3:4 "And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace."

I am almost certain that Rabbi Jesus/Yehoshua was referring to the situation faced by the Machabees when Greco - Syrian armies were attacking Jewish communities on the Sabbath.

One community had refused to fight back....but the Machabees....in my opinion correctly judged that this is a violation of an admonition by King Solomon:

Ecclesiastes 7:16 "Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?"

Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, First Book Of Machabees Chapter 2
..."So they gave them battle on the sabbath: and they were slain with their wives, and their children, and their cattle, to the number of a thousand persons. [39] And Mathathias and his friends heard of it, and they mourned for them exceedingly. [40] And every man said to his neighbour: If we shall all do as our brethren have done, and not fight against the heathens for our lives, and our justifications: they will now quickly root us out of the earth.

[41] And they determined in that day, saying: Whosoever shall come up against us to fight on the sabbath day, we will fight against him: and we will not all die, as our brethren that were slain in the secret places."

 

[tulc]

I think that you will be intrigued by the results to this poll:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7758287/


An apology to all members of the military and police!
I just want to say that I am truly sorry for all those years that I was close to believing in near total pacifism! Rabbi Jesus/Yehoshua once asked a question of the Scribes and Pharisees that should have made it obvious to me that an extreme situation can call for drastic action by a Christian or Jew who feels called into a life in the military or police!

Mark 3:4 "And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace."

I am almost certain that Rabbi Jesus/Yehoshua was referring to the situation faced by the Machabees when Greco - Syrian armies were attacking Jewish communities on the Sabbath.

One community had refused to fight back....but the Machabees....in my opinion correctly judged that this is a violation of an admonition by King Solomon:

Ecclesiastes 7:16 "Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?"

Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, First Book Of Machabees Chapter 2
..."So they gave them battle on the sabbath: and they were slain with their wives, and their children, and their cattle, to the number of a thousand persons. [39] And Mathathias and his friends heard of it, and they mourned for them exceedingly. [40] And every man said to his neighbour: If we shall all do as our brethren have done, and not fight against the heathens for our lives, and our justifications: they will now quickly root us out of the earth.

[41] And they determined in that day, saying: Whosoever shall come up against us to fight on the sabbath day, we will fight against him: and we will not all die, as our brethren that were slain in the secret places."

Let's give the verse some context:

1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. 2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.
3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.
4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

so...a Scripture about healing someone, doing good on the Sabbath, ACTUALLY means it's ok to kill other people on the Sabbath?
tulc(finds that hard to believe)

 

[DennisTate]

Let's give the verse some context:

so...a Scripture about healing someone, doing good on the Sabbath, ACTUALLY means it's ok to kill other people on the Sabbath?
tulc(finds that hard to believe)

I can see why that would sound pretty strange but the Machabees were the grandparents of the Pharisees so people at that time were more aware of the stories about the wars between the Maccabees with the Greco- Syrian armies than most American history students are knowledgeable about the events of the American Revolutionary War.

The "or to kill" part of the question by Messiah Yeshua - Jesus does need to be put in historical context.

 

[keith99]

I happen to have dug into some of the dark corners of WW II.

If one takes this view of Just war it seems Neville Chamberlain should not be vilified but instead praised.

It would seem France was wrong for wanting to regain recently lost territory and should instead settled for a peace which would have given Germany about half of what was France.

But most important the early plots that might have (might have, not would have) avoided the war entirely were wrong because they both involved individuals and would have occurred before all chances for negotiation were exhausted.

It would also seem this 'Just War' condemns the defenders of the Warsaw Ghetto and for that matter all Jews who decided to fight instead of going peacefully to the gas chambers as they had no country to represent them.

I'd also ask just what non-combatant immunity means. Does that include munitions plant workers? Is it unjust to destroy the enemy's means of waging war?

 

[DennisTate]

I happen to have dug into some of the dark corners of WW II.

If one takes this view of Just war it seems Neville Chamberlain should not be vilified but instead praised.

It would seem France was wrong for wanting to regain recently lost territory and should instead settled for a peace which would have given Germany about half of what was France.

But most important the early plots that might have (might have, not would have) avoided the war entirely were wrong because they both involved individuals and would have occurred before all chances for negotiation were exhausted.

It would also seem this 'Just War' condemns the defenders of the Warsaw Ghetto and for that matter all Jews who decided to fight instead of going peacefully to the gas chambers as they had no country to represent them.

I'd also ask just what non-combatant immunity means. Does that include munitions plant workers? Is it unjust to destroy the enemy's means of waging war?

Extremely well said Keith99.

 

[Kalevalatar]

The "just war theory" is nothing but an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

''All aggression is condemned; only defensive war is legitimate.''
What is aggressive and what is defensive? Must you personally be attacked in order to be a defensive actor? What if you see injustice and decide to join an effort in order to stop that unjust? Would it be wrong for states or non state actors to for instance join an effort against Nazi Germany even though Nazi Germany does not constitute a threat against them personally? Would it be wrong to support or join opposition to immoral regimes even though they do not constitute a threat to you yourself?

Using the WWII era as an example, the Winter War is classified as a defensive war. Stalin wanted to reinforce Leningrad's security and defense and to that end needed Finnish Karelian & Arctic territory and island in the Gulf of Finland. Finland declined to cede the territories, the Soviet Union attacked, Finland put up a fight, and 400,000 casualties later, Stalin got the territorial guarantees of security for Leningrad's defense.

Alternatively, Finland could have ceded those territories peacefully via negotiations without being forced to with a bloody war, in defense of her territorial sovereignty. So was the defensive Finnish Winter War justified, when the outcome was basically the same than sans the war in between? Or the end justifies the means? Had Finland won and kept her territory, the XXX,XXX lost lives would have been worth it? Or is it so that no piece of real estate and worldly material & mammon is worth a single unique human life?

As a Christian, I tend to see it that way, not worth it and therefore not justifiable. Post-war, Finland rebuilt herself as one of the most successful countries in human history, but Finland did it despite the war, not as a consequence, when something good supposedly comes out of the bad and utter evil.

Similarly, just as Finland later joined forces with nazi Germany to fight another evil, the Allied chose one evil to fight another. The outcome and consequence was that while the evil of nazi Germany was defeated, another evil was created when the Soviet Union was handed half of Europe as a thank you gesture, thus dooming 100 million people to oppression. Furthermore, empowering the USSR fuelled the Cold War which fuelled all those evil double-deals with the world's saddam husseins and human rights abuses and further wars and conflicts and a booming killing machine business itself fuelling armed conflicts. Again, the price paid for defeating Hitler seems very high indeed.

 

[keith99]

The "just war theory" is nothing but an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.



Using the WWII era as an example, the Winter War is classified as a defensive war. Stalin wanted to reinforce Leningrad's security and defense and to that end needed Finnish Karelian & Arctic territory and island in the Gulf of Finland. Finland declined to cede the territories, the Soviet Union attacked, Finland put up a fight, and 400,000 casualties later, Stalin got the territorial guarantees of security for Leningrad's defense.

Alternatively, Finland could have ceded those territories peacefully via negotiations without being forced to with a bloody war, in defense of her territorial sovereignty. So was the defensive Finnish Winter War justified, when the outcome was basically the same than sans the war in between? Or the end justifies the means? Had Finland won and kept her territory, the XXX,XXX lost lives would have been worth it? Or is it so that no piece of real estate and worldly material & mammon is worth a single unique human life?

As a Christian, I tend to see it that way, not worth it and therefore not justifiable. Post-war, Finland rebuilt herself as one of the most successful countries in human history, but Finland did it despite the war, not as a consequence, when something good supposedly comes out of the bad and utter evil.

Similarly, just as Finland later joined forces with nazi Germany to fight another evil, the Allied chose one evil to fight another. The outcome and consequence was that while the evil of nazi Germany was defeated, another evil was created when the Soviet Union was handed half of Europe as a thank you gesture, thus dooming 100 million people to oppression. Furthermore, empowering the USSR fuelled the Cold War which fuelled all those evil double-deals with the world's saddam husseins and human rights abuses and further wars and conflicts and a booming killing machine business itself fuelling armed conflicts. Again, the price paid for defeating Hitler seems very high indeed.

The rise of the Soviet Union could have been prevented at the end of WW II. Many of the generals wanted to invade at that point. And it likely would have been successful, at least if the West, Germany and the Slavic countries were all united.

But that did not happen at least in part because it would have been viewed as an offensive war. (In larger part because everyone was weary of war).

EDIT: Thinking of the if Finland had kept the territory question, perhaps the answer changes quite a bit if one was a Fin who lived in the lost territory. Perhaps if you asked East Germans, Poles and Ukrainians if invading Russia at the end of WW II would have been worth it they would say yes.

There is a problem with viewing land as just territory, there are almost always people who live there who end up under the control of a different government. Usually a worse government if invaded.

 

[Floyd20]

"Just and Unjust Wars" by Michael Walzer is a good book on the topic. IIRC, I have a much older edition and it remains unread (sigh!).

Also sad is that IR (international relations) progresses by way of counterfactual reasoning or what we could call "might have beens." There are books about counterfactual reasoning and world politics. Philip Tetlock's may be a bit dated.

Declaration of war seems to be limited to states. But there is civil war where disadvantaged groups may attempt to right wrongs. Likewise displaced people within a country may not legally be refugees but they can still seek redress for suffering.

Some terminology is based upon international relations and some terminology is based upon international law. Then there is the world of diplomatic relations.

The Kellog-Briand Pact of about 1928 is international law which the United States signed and it makes offensive war illegal. This is why when the United States mined the harbour in Nicaragua and had not declared war that they were found to be disobeying international law. Great Powers sometimes figure that they do not have to follow international law. Smaller powers may seek the support of Great Powers. Great Powers of the Permanent members of the Security Council can veto collective security actions.

Romans 13, of course, discusses "magistrates" who may hold secular authority posts in order to keep peace. Some degree of law and order too albeit in an international sense. Giving authority over world peace to any individual would just be too scary to those people who speculate as to who shall be the Antichrist.

Still it has occurred to some Americans that as the end of WW II was approaching, the POTUS decided (or did he?) that a larger number of deaths to Soviet Russia would be a good thing for postwar international relations. He may therefore have sent less aid to the USSR and by neglect allowed millions of Russians to die many of whom were civilians. But, it resulted in a much weakened Russia.

In war the deathcounts count such things as "our" soldiers, "their" soldiers, "our" non-combatants; and, "their" non-combatants. National Power may be considered too and this is described in "Politics Among Nations" by Hans Morgenthau.

I do so wish to read "Modern Strategy" by Colin S. Gray though it is dated. But reading about global strategy makes one feel so unclean. As far as a national strategy is concerned, I wonder whether we can ever see that losing or sacrificing our own citizens and soldiers to a greater good is better than losing or sacrificing someone else's citizens or soldiers to that greater good.

Great Powers tend to rate one of their soldiers' lives above maybe 100 of the other countries individuals' lives. It seems that in war equality is an early casualty. And since in war truth is also a casualty, truth about deathcounts is often suppressed.

I recently read "The Christian Ethic of War" by Peter Taylor Forsyth (1916) which is available for free from Internet Archive. It is a bit controversial. He takes some form of pacifist argument and then disputes it.

Earlier this year I read Martin Luther's "On Secular Authority" (and whether it should be obeyed). The possibility of being a "magistrate" is open to all citizens and Christians are citizens.

There has been some discussion as to whether being a "conscientious objector" be given the status of a human right. I suppose that there are ways it might be done. But it would mean putting lives in danger in an equal way for the Conscientious Objectors as to the danger to the Regular Soldiers. Otherwise the Regular Soldiers would feel they are being used unfairly.

Soldiers apparently fight for the four freedoms: Freedom of Conscience, Freedom from Fear, Freedom from Want, and, Freedom of Expression. At least those are what I recall right now. Or is it just propaganda and soldiers really fight to enrich a minority of people in the Great Powers?

 

[majid500]

Is it right?

 

[Floyd20]

Yeah, when does an "is" become an "ought?" To even claim that such is possible is sometimes called the "naturalistic fallacy." When does a personal problem become a social issue? How is it that one death might be a tragedy and a million deaths become a statistic? Why are people who are taught IR (international relations) gently brought to lower their humanitarian defaults maybe even losing their souls to power politics?